Number of tubes that help cool a nuclear reactor at Florida Power &
Light's St. Lucie plant near Fort Pierce, Fla. that show signs of
significant wear: more than 3,700[more than 1/3rd of all tubes]Population living within 50 miles of the St. Lucie plant: over 1.1 million
Year in which FPL replaced the St. Lucie steam generators that hold the tubes: 2007
Year in which FPL shut down the St. Lucie reactor for routine
refueling and found the tubes were banging against stainless steel
anti-vibration bars, leaving dents and worn spots: 2009
Number of years FPL intended the new generators to last: 36
Year in which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved FPL's
request to run the St. Lucie reactor harder to increase its power
output, a move that increased stress on the tubes: 2012
Date on which FPL is scheduled to shut down the St. Lucie reactor for routine refueling: 3/3/2014
Date on which the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy called on the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to keep the St. Lucie plant from
coming back online until the tubes are inspected, and on which it asked
Florida lawmakers to review the state's 2006 "nuclear tax" law: 2/24/2014
Year in which Duke Energy permanently closed its Crystal River nuclear plant in Florida after a botched repair job: 2013

HOW SAFE ARE THE AGING FACILITIES?WOULD YOU BUY A HOUSE NEXT DOOR?HONESTLY, WOULD YOU MOVE YOUR CHILDREN IN THERE?HOW SAFE IS TURKEY POINT?

Here are Saporito's five reasons the nuke plant in our own back yard
is apocalyptically unsafe. (FPL didn't respond to a request for comment
but in the past has maintained that Saporito was canned with cause.)
1. It's old. When Turkey Point went into operation in 1972, it was licensed for 40 years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
recently "rubber-stamped" another 20 years, allowing the plant to
operate until 2033. "This is uncharted territory," Saporito says. "They
cannot dispute that those reactors may crack from being bombarded with
high-level radiation."

2. Employees are afraid to report safety concerns. Saporito claims FPL
fired him — twice — for whistleblowing. The utility's punitive bent has
what he calls a "chilling effect": Nuclear workers don't come forward
with safety concerns. His evidence: In the past six years, the NRC has
received 160 anonymous complaints about Florida nuclear plants from
their workers, "far in excess of any other nuclear plants in the U.S."
What concerns Saporito is that those workers didn't feel safe bringing
their complaints to FPL.

3. Just like in Japan, Turkey Point is susceptible to a meltdown caused
by a natural disaster. A hurricane-spurred tidal surge from Turkey
Point's neighboring Biscayne Bay
could create catastrophic conditions identical to those in Japan. With
power down, the plant would be forced to rely on emergency diesel
generators to pump water to cool the reactors. Saporito believes those
generators would "certainly" become inundated with water from the tidal
surge, causing them to drown and fail.

4. The plant's spent fuel pools are brimming with danger. Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Station's spent fuel pools are threatening to boil away
and introduce radiation into the air. Last June, FPL was fined $70,000
for violations regarding Turkey Point's spent fuel pools. The negligence
"could have resulted in a severe nuclear accident," Saporito says.
"That could be a horrific disaster all by itself."

5. If Turkey Point melts down, Miami is doomed. Saporito says there
will be no time to evacuate the city to protect ourselves from
radiation. If there's a meltdown, "people are going to die," he says,
"and the entire city of Miami could become a ghost town that nobody can
go back to for 50,000 years."

THINK ABOUT THAT..I ONLY ASK THAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT... THIS APPLIES TO ALL OUR OLD NUCLEAR FACILITIES,, WORN-OUT, SUSCEPTIBLE TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND "TERRORISTS"

Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has spent years pushing
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission toward stricter enforcement of its
safety rules, has called for a reassessment. Several U.S. reactors lie
on or near fault lines, and Markey wants to beef up standards for new
and existing plants.
[There are five nuclear reactors at three locations in Florida: Progress Energy's Crystal River plant, 80 miles north of Tampa; Florida Power & Light's St. Lucie 1 and St. Lucie 2 in Jensen Beach, 10 miles southeast of Ft. Pierce, and FPL's Turkey Point 3 and Turkey Point 4,
just 25 miles south of Miami. The St. Lucie reactors are some 180 miles
south of Palm Coast. The Crystal River reactor is 140 miles west of
Palm Coast.
The distance between Palm Coast and the Crystal River nuclear reactor
is exactly the same distance separating Tokyo and the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant in Japan, where workers have been struggling to
battle a potential meltdown contain the most serious nuclear disaster
since the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986.
There are also two nuclear-power reactors at the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant in Baxley, Ga. (Unit 1 and Unit 2). Those are roughly 186 miles from Palm Coast.]
“This disaster serves to highlight both the fragility of nuclear
power plants and the potential consequences associated with a
radiological release caused by earthquake related damage,” Markey wrote
NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko in a March 11 letter.

THINK ABOUT THAT...WHY WOULDN'T THEY AT LEAST GO CHECK OUT WHAT THE ENGINEER SAID, LET HIM SHOW THEM WHAT HE MEANS BY HIS CONCERN?

Boiling water reactors, like the ones hit by the Japanese earthquake, are built like nested matroyshka dolls.
The
inner doll, which looks like a gigantic cocktail shaker and holds the
radioactive uranium, is the heavy steel reactor vessel. It sits inside a
concrete and steel dome called the containment. The reactor vessel is
the primary defense against disaster — as long as the radiation stays
inside everything is fine.
The worry is that a disaster could either damage the vessel itself
or, more likely, damage equipment that used to control the uranium. If
operators cannot circulate water through the vessel to cool the uranium
it could overheat and burn into radioactive slag — a meltdown.

The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the
largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a
monumental scale.
The rant of an antinuclear activist?
Hardly. It was the first sentence of an in-depth story in a conservative business magazine, Forbes.
In 1985. Forbes' point then — that out-of-control costs and poor
decisionmaking doomed the nuclear power industry — may prove as relevant
in 2012 as it was a generation ago. And it points up a looming question
as Tampa Bay faces its own $22.4 billion nuclear project:

A lack of experience and standardized designs caused many utilities to
suffer soaring costs. Some plants had to be redesigned. Parts of others
repeatedly were rebuilt or reinforced. Major deficiencies began
sprouting up — a reactor installed backward, a control panel that caught
fire, defective concrete. In one case, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approved designs for a reactor even though the utility was
building a different type of reactor. Buzz over the U.S. "nuclear renaissance" fades in the wake of the Japan nuclear disaster.

REALLY?WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFE, EVEN 95% SAFE?MORE THAN WE'VE GOT, MORE THAN WE'LL EVER HAVE.

IN CASE YOU CHOSE NOT TO READ ABOUT THE 2 "ACCIDENTS" AT NUKE FACILITY PLANTS IN THE U.S. LAST WEEK, MAYBE YOU'LL WANT TO READ NOW?LITTLE IS BEING SAID OR WRITTEN ABOUT THE FLORIDA "ACCIDENT"... AND LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT CONDITIONS IN NEW MEXICO, WE'RE TOLD.WE DO KNOW THAT NEW MEXICO IS LEAVING THE NUCLEAR WASTE ABOVE GROUND FOR NOW, FOR LONGER THAN IS "SAFE", AND THAT FALLOUT WAS SET TO DRIFT OVER TEXAS, BUT "DON'T WORRY"."ALL IS WELL."

AFTER MORE THAN 2 WEEKS, STILL NO REAL ANSWERS AS TO HOW MUCH RADIATION, HOW SERIOUSLY THOSE 13 WORKERS WERE/WILL BE AFFECTED, NOR WHEN AND WHERE THEY PLAN TO SHIP OUT ALL THAT NUCLEAR WASTE SITTING ON THE GROUND OUT THERE.

"ALL IS WELL, NO NEED TO WORRY."PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON ARE IN CHARGE.RELAX.

The New Mexico Environment Department is getting weekly updates
regarding the status of the site, and has demanded that an inspection be
carried out before operations at the nuclear facility are re-launched.
"To require them to begin to systematically ship particular waste units
back to points of origin or back to particular locations in a rather
expedited fashion was not the best thing as far as environmental health
or human health in this instance," said Jeff Kendall, attorney for the
Environment Department, explaining the department’s thinking in a phone
interview with the wire service.
Officials have not yet ascertained what caused the leak of radioactive elements.

New Mexico has extended the time allowed for keeping atomic waste above
ground after last month’s radioactive release at an underground
repository.
The federally run Waste Isolation Pilot Plant remains closed following
the February release of a small quantity of radiation from the
subterranean dump. In the meantime, dozens of atomic waste-filled
containers sent from other federal sites to the New Mexico repository
for disposal are being left in the site's parking area and
waste-handling facility, the Associated Press reported.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has threatened enforcement action against a New Mexico uranium enrichment plant following what ... the facility did not have adequate accident-prevention procedures in place

AS OUR NUCLEAR FACILITIES CRUMBLE AND FAIL, COUNT ON MUCH MORE OF THIS IN THE "NEWS"..AND COUNT ON THIS AS WELL{ YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN IF THESE FACILITIES ALL FALL DOWN.MAKE YOURSELVES AWARE OF HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO THESE DISASTERS WAITING TO HAPPEN, TRY TO COME UP WITH AN EVACUATION ROUTE AND THE PROPER WAY TO TREAT ANYONE EXPOSED TO RADIATION, AND DAMNIT, REALIZE THAT NOT ONE MOLECULE OF RADIOACTIVE ANYTHING IS GOOD FOR A HUMAN BODY.GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND AND DO ALL YOU CAN TO HELP YOURSELVES!PLEASE!

WHILE FEW ARE OPENLY ADMITTING IT, MANY EXPERTS AND "THOSE IN THE KNOW" KNEW THE TRUTH LONG AGO....GERMANY'S GOLD, HELD BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE SINCE THE LAST WORLD WAR, IS NOT IN THE VAULTS.IT'S GONE. A FORMER U.S. TREASURY OFFICIAL TELLS US IT'S GONE, EXPERTS SAY IT, THOSE WHO KNOW THE "FED" KNOW THE FACTS...THE GOLD IS ALL GONE, ALL GONE.BUT NOT JUST GERMANY'S GOLD.

THIS IS AN UPDATE TO PREVIOUS ARTICLES HERE, AND I WILL NOT BE WRITING ABOUT THIS AGAIN UNLESS THE 'FED' GETS CAUGHT AND IS PROSECUTED FOR "GRAND THEFT".NOT LIKELY...THEY OWN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AFTER ALL...AND ALL OUR OWN GOLD HAS BEEN "DISAPPEARED" SINCE ABOUT 1950...MAYBE A DECADE PRIOR TO THAT.SOME OF THE ARTICLES CITED BELOW ARE FROM THIS YEAR, 2014.
Nobody wants to admit it openly. The German Gold Reserves in the United States are gone, used for financing the United States war chest and bet for “Global Full Spectrum Dominance”. So why is even the German Federal Bank trying to avoid further speculation by referring to a non-existent “full transparency” ? The answer is quite simple. Nobody wants the current backwardation of the gold market to turn into a permanent backwardation of the gold market. The consequence would be the inevitable collapse of global trade and civilization as we know it.

In July 2013, the US American hedge-fund manager William Kaye created a stir when he picked-up the ball, stating:

” Germany won´t ever see its gold again…… Central Banks, such as the FED, where most of the reserves had been deposited, had lent the gold to U.S. Banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.

The gold has been used in the market to lower the gold price and the FED has received securities in exchange…. Germany won´t ever see that gold again, because it is safely kept in my accounts and the accounts of our investors”.

The Co-Initiator of the group 'the Initiative' calling for the repatriation of Germany's gold, Peter Boehringer, states that he considers it absolutely plausible, that the German gold reserves no longer exist within the USA in terms of physical gold bars. Moreover, Boehringer states, that one can strongly suspect it. Boehringer concludes:

“We do believe the Deutsche Bundesbank in its statements, but we do not believe that the Bundesbank can believe what its contractual partners say. The Deutsche Bundesbank simply cannot be sure, that the gold reserves still are present at the FED in the form of gold bars” .

“The Bundesbank does not even officially claim this, or cannot prove the physical presence according to appropriate principles of accounting. The Bundesbank has officially informed us, that the depots and Partner Central Banks have a marvelous integrity, and that the doubts, which we have forwarded in the form of questions, are unsubstantiated“.

He then, correctly remarks the fact which the Bundesbank obviously attempts to omit, which is, that the FED has not performed any official audit of its gold holdings since 1953,
“If German gold reserves really have been used as collateral, one will first have to buy them back”.

And here, Boehringer is touching the most touchy of issues. It is correct, that the FED would first have to buy the gold before it could deliver, but the trouble is, that the gold-market has been in backwardation since early July 2013. To buy gold requires that there is someone who is able and willing to sell gold, and with the market being in backwardation that is impossible.

[THERE HAS BEEN NO REAL AUDIT OF PHYSICAL GOLD BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE IN
OVER 60 YEARS! IN A PREVIOUS BLOG HERE, I POSTED THE VIDEO OF BERNANKE
THREATENING CONGRESS IF THEY DEMANDED SUCH AN AUDIT. YES, THE "FED" CAN
AND DOES AND ALWAYS WILL THUMB ITS NOSE AT CONGRESS, THE CONSTITUTION,
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.]

According to a nsnbc international report with World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes, we may be facing a global currency war as corruption at the World Bank unsettles the gold market. Karen Hudes has worked 20 years as legal counsel at the World Bank´s legal department. Hudes was sacked in retaliation after she blew the whistle and reported massive corruption in the Bretton Woods institutions.

THE WASHINGTON POST HAD A WEE ARTICLE ON THIS: January 16, 2013, BUT MOSTLY POKED A BIT OF FUN AT GERMANY.<<The system, of course, is built upon trust -- that the New York Fed
won’t suddenly be taken over by people with no respect for those
nations’ property rights and seize it for their own use, and that the
central banks won’t lie about how much gold is in their vaults. Among
the world’s central bankers, that trust runs deep, and most governments
are content to keep their gold wherever it is most convenient. The
exceptions are governments that have reason to fear that their gold
stocks could be frozen as part of a conflict, such as in Iran and Libya.>>

ONE READER AT THE POST COMMENTED, WITH MUCH WIT:<<"the decision reflects a real, and somewhat disturbing, current in German politics." Psychologizing. A tactic often used by the left. The gold belongs to Germany and should be housed in their country, no need to do a Freudian analysis. >>
I DOUBT ANYONE AT THE POST IS CAPABLE OF SPELLING "FREUDIAN" PROPERLY, BUT I MAY BE WRONG.

IN A BETTER ARTICLE (TO ME) SILVERDOCTORS HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD:
FEB.14, 2014<<The German government knows the score (as in, gold has gone east), but they are .... Not only does US not have Germany's gold, they don't have the US gold

THERE IS CONSIDERABLE DEBATE AND CONFUSION ON EXACTLY HOW MUCH GERMAN GOLD IS MISSING. FROM HUNDREDS OF TONS TO THOUSANDS OF TONS, NO ONE SEEMS 100% SURE HOW MUCH GERMANY IS MISSING.

GATA POSTED ON JAN. 6, 2014... Bill Holter: All the questions have the same answer -- Germany's gold is gone
<<As you know, Germany has reported that 37.5 tons were delivered last
year, which is about 50 tons shy of what was the announced plan last
January and was expected to be delivered over the course of 2013. Peter
Boehringer (Germany's equivalent of GATA's Chris Powell here in the
States) asked many questions of the Bundesbank, the most central being:
Why was this gold "recast" before being returned?
As there has not been an audit of Fort Knox since the 1950's, nor a
bar list made public since this German gold was claimed to have been
deposited with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York back in the 1950s,
this is a can of worms that has already been opened and any "answer"
will only lead to more questions.>>
MMM-HMMM, MORE QUESTIONS AND NO, NOT ONE, ANSWER.
THE FED DOESN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS.
CONTINUED FROM GATA: <<So why exactly would the gold need to be recast before sending it back?
Never mind the obvious question that we've already asked. Why will it take up to eight years to send the Germans their gold?
You see, gold has a "fingerprint." Once it is refined down to 99.999
percent pure, the fingerprint is erased. For example, the "coin melt"
that came from the 1934 confiscation has a fingerprint of 90 percent
purity. The gold the Soviet Union was selling back in 1990 was 89
percent pure and had the czar's stamp on it, which was a dead giveaway
that they were out of gold (money). They collapsed within six months and
it was foretold by this "fingerprinted gold."
For these 37.5 tons to be recast brings up the question: Where did it
come from? Was this the original gold that was safe-kept? Or was the
German gold leased out a hundred times over and is this gold being
recast and returned from another source?
Is this like the bank employee or even retail cashier who stole from
the register with the intent of replacing it before anyone found out?>>
BUT...BUT...NO ONE IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO FIND OUT...
THE WORLD HAS SAID TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE,"LET ME SEE MY GOLD, LET ME HAVE IT, LET ME TEST IT, COUNT IT."
AND THE FED HAS SAID, "UP YOURS! MAKE MESHOW IT TO YOU, TRY! TRY AND GET IT BACK!"

IF THE GOLD WAS NOT GONE, GERMANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COLLECT IT WHEN IT PLEASED, AND WHEN IT ASKED TO SEE IT, JUST SEE IT, IF THE "FED" WAS IN POSSESSION OF IT, A FULL AUDIT, WITH PROPER TESTING OF THE QUALITY OF THOSE BARS, WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY EASY, SIMPLE, AND HONEST.

"The market hasn't quite fathomed the
scale of annual Chinese buying just because of the wealth effect in
China over the next coming years. I don’t think gold’s going to come
back to $1,000, like many people are suggesting, because I’m seeing
what’s happening in China."

WELL, CHINA, WITHOUT A LOT OF HOOPLA OR FANFARE, IS CHANGING THE STRUCTURE OF GLOBAL CURRENCY, IS SET ON DOING AWAY WITH U.S. WORTHLESS DOLLARS, AND CHINA IS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DO SO.

DITTO FOR OUR KISSING-BUDDIES, BUSH AND CARTER FAVORITES, THOSESAUDI ARABIAN GOLD-LOVERS.
THE REPORTS SEEM TO POINT AT A LITTLE "PILLOW-TALK" BETWEEN CHINA AND THE ILLEGITIMATE "HOUSE OF SAUD".
WHATEVER SAUDIS WANT, SAUDIS GET...THOSE OIL FIELDS MAKE AMERICA ANCE TO ANY TUNE.

STILL, TO ONE AND TO ALL, THE FED SAYS, CONFIDENTLY, SMILING, "SCREW YOU!" TO ANYONE WHO ASKS ABOUT FED-HELD GOLD.
THE FED REMINDS ME A BIT OF THE LITTLE CREATURE GOLUM IN 'LORD OF THE RINGS', HANGING ONTO 'THE PRECIOUS', GOING WILD EACH TIME HE SEES IT AND WILLING TO KILL TO GET IT BACK.

AND WHY DID WE EVER AGREE TO HAND OVER ALL THE GOLD TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE?
WE'D HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO DIG UP OLD FDR AND FORCE HIM TO REVEAL THAT...
I DON'T THINK WATERBOARDING ANYONE FROM THE FED WOULD DO THE TRICK...
I'D SUGGEST OLD TRICKY DICK CHENEY, aka DARTH CHENEY, FOR THAT TASK OF GETTING THE TRUTH OUT OF THE FED, BUT HIS FINGERS ARE ALL IN THAT PIE.
EVEN THE DARKEST, MOST EVIL 'OVERLORD" CAN'T TAP THE FED FOR TRUTH.

SORRY, GERMANY...YOU'RE IN THE BOAT WITH THE REST OF US WHO LOST TRACK OF ALL THE GOLD.

NEVER HAND A KNOWN BURGLAR THE KEYS TO YOUR HOUSE.

BUT WE HAVE...AND WE WON'T DO ONE DAMNED THING TO CHANGE THAT.

ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD...AND NOTHING MUCH IN THE FED'S VAULTS RESEMBLES GOLD, DOES IT?

ACTUALLY, NOAA HAS SEEN AND DOCUMENTED DEBRIS FROM THE JAPANESE 2011 TSUNAMI SINCE DECEMBER OF 2011 IN AREAS LIKE AMERICA'S PACIFIC STATES AND BRITISH COLUMBIAHERE IT IS FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS;PLEASE NOTE, THIS "NEWS FLASH" WAS POSTED AND REVISED Revised: Feb 27, 2014THIS MONTH, YESTERDAY!AFTER 3 YEARS!

"'Since December 2011, NOAA has received hundreds of marine debris
sighting reports from at-sea vessels and beachgoers in Pacific-area
states and British Columbia. These items range in size and type,
anything from small plastic bottles to derelict boats. To date, several
of these items have been definitively traced back to the tsunami,
typically by registration number or some other unique marking.'"

GO SEE THE MAP ITSELF BY CLICKING HERE.SO WHY IS NOAA FINALLY SHARING THIS INFORMATION NOW?MY OPINION IS THAT, WITH SO MANY CITIZENS REPORTING AND WITH SO MANY "RECOGNIZED, PEER-REVIEWED" SCIENTISTS BEGINNING TO SET UP A HOWL, THEY HAD NO CHOICE...THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG...

"'Confirmed sightings (red triangle) indicate objects that were
identified and definitively traced back to the tsunami impact area.
Potential sightings (yellow circle) indicate objects that may be
linked to the tsunami, based on location, type, and markings, but that
may not have the unique identifiers necessary, such as a serial number
or contact information, to confirm its origin.'"

BUT NOW, A LARGER MASS IS COMING ASHORE:SEE THAT MAP HERE.AND THE ADMISSION THAT THIS WILL GO ON FOR YEARS:NOAA expects widely scattered tsunami debris to continue

washing up along Paci c shorelines intermittently over the

coming years, mixed in with non-tsunami marine debrisThe model also takes into account the fact that winds can move different
types of debris at different speeds. For example, wind may push an
upright boat (large portion above water) faster than a piece of lumber
(floating mostly at and below the surface).NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, RIGHT?...WELL, NO, NOW WE CAN BE CONCERNED BECAUSE NOAA IS CONCERNED, OR SO IT SAYS:

Marine Debris Handling Guidelines

General Guidance
Be safe: Use common sense and follow general safety guidelines. If
you don't know what an item is, don't touch it. If it appears hazardous,
contact appropriate authorities.
Some West Coast states have established toll-free phone lines for
reporting all categories of marine debris, including potentially
hazardous debris:

Oregon: Call 2-1-1
Washington: Call 1-855-WACOAST (Note: The 1-855-WACOAST state
hotline set up for reporting marine debris will be taken off-line at 5
p.m. Dec. 31, 2013. People will still be able to report hazardous marine
debris – such as gas cans, cylinders and oil drums – 24 hours a day to
1-800-OILS-911.)
Hawaii: Call (808) 587-0400

Marine debris items or significant accumulations potentially related to the tsunami can also be reported to DisasterDebris@noaa.gov
with as much information as possible (including its location, the date
and time you found it, photos, and any relevant descriptions).

Potential hazardous materials (HAZMAT)Examples: Oil or chemical drums, gas cans, propane tanks.
Contact your local authorities (a 911 call), a state emergency response
or environmental health agency, and the National Response Center at
1-800-424-8802 to report the item with as much information as possible.
Do not touch the item or attempt to move it. Do not contact DisasterDebris@noaa.gov for response assistance.

Remains
It is highly unlikely that remains from the tsunami will reach the
United States, but if you see human remains anywhere, contact local
authorities (a 911 call) and report what you observed. Do not touch or
attempt to move them.

Unknown item
If you don't know what it is, don't touch it. If you believe it is a hazardous item, contact local authorities and report it.

Items have made landfall in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California,
Hawaii, and British Columbia. Mariners have also reported debris as they
crossed the North Pacific. Marie debris is pushed through the ocean by
wind and currents, and no one is able to accurately predict how winds
and currents will behave more than a week in advance; it's similar to
predicting the weather. NOAA's models give us an understanding of where
debris is located today, but they do not predict where debris will go in
the future.

Is the tsunami marine debris radioactive?

NOAA
is not actively involved in monitoring radiation related to Fukushima,
however the EPA continues to monitor air and the FDA is testing fish. NO, THAT'S INCORRECT.NO AGENCY ATTACHED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY EQUIPPED WITH WORKING DEVICES TO MONITOR THESE THINGS AS OTHER NATIONS ARE.THE EPA ADMITS IT HAS A FEW FUNCTIONAL MONITORS, HASN'T SEEN THE NEED TO DO MUCH MONITORING, AND THE FDA IS TESTING BUT A FEW SPECIES OF FOOD FISH. AGAIN, "LACK OF FUNDING", NO ONE WANTS TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY, AND WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE NEEDED EQUIPMENT AND TRAINED PERSONNEL TO DO THIS THING.

SO, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM HERE ON OUT?"'This debris will likely intermittently scatter along the coast, as was
observed in 2011-2012. These expectations are based on general debris
behavior, model outputs, and patterns in at-sea sightings reports that
all point to debris being widely dispersed over large areas.
The NOAA model shows that bulk of the debris is likely still dispersed
north of the Main Hawaiian Islands and east of Midway Atoll. Beachgoers
may notice an increase in debris on beaches over many years, in addition
to marine debris that normally washes up, depending on where ocean
currents carry it.'"

IT ISN'T "JUST" THE RADIATION...

Scientists are particularly interested in the organisms that could be living on objects from Japan reaching the west coast.

"At first we were only thinking about objects like the floating
docks, but now we’re finding that all kinds of Japanese organisms are
growing on the debris," John Chapman of the Marine Science Center at
Oregon State University told Fox News.

"We've found over 165 non-native species so far," he continued. "One
type of insect, and almost all the others are marine organisms … we
found the European blue mussel, which was introduced to Asia long ago,
and then it grew on a lot of these things that are coming across the
Pacific ... we’d never seen it here, and we don’t particularly want it
here."

WE DON'T WANT ANY OF IT, BUT IT'S HERE...AND IT JUST KEEPS COMING...THAT'S THE MOST CRIMINAL OF ALL THIS...NO ONE IS MAKING IT STOP.

Dr Ken Buesseler, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Feb. 24, 2014: “What we have to go by right now are models [...] these
predict numbers as high as 30 of these becquerels per cubic metre of
water. It’s interesting: if this was of greater health concern, we’d be
very worried about these factors of ten differences in the models. To my
mind, this is not really acceptable. We need better studies and
resources to do a better job, because there are many reactors on coasts
and rivers and if we can’t predict within a factor of 10 what caesium or
some other isotope is downstream – I think that’s a pretty poor job.”

Feb. 6, 2014, RADIO INTERVIEWSteve Elwart, Professional Engineer, Ph.D., executive research
analyst with the Koinonia Institute and subject matter expert for the
Department of Homeland Security, when asked if he thinks the u.s. government realizes that Fukushima is a worldwide disaster, replied, '''I think that’s very possible. I
think that the government is not going to want to upset a short-term
economic sector on the possibility of long-term problem.'"The 2011 disaster is a story of government lies, corporate ineptitude,
and environmental destruction, he commented. There are a lot of unknowns
and uncertainty when it comes to what the environmental effects and
damage will be, and this is one reason why mainstream media has not
extensively covered the topic, he continued.

HOST: '"It could be 10, 15, 20 years, people will die of cancer, they’ll never
attribute it to this — and we’re not going to shake up the seafood
industry, we’re not going to create panic, we’re just going to keep our
mouths shut.'"

JUST GOING TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT...WHY NOT?THEY CHOSE TO KEEP SILENT ABOUT THE DANGER OF ALL THIS AND THE HORRIBLE EFFECTS IT WILL HAVE ON HUMAN BEINGS FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.WHEN THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME HOPE, SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE, NOTHING WAS DONE, AND MAYBE THE VALID REASON WAS THAT IT'S JUST TOO MUCH TO TACKLE, AND THAT NOTHING WE DO CAN STOP WHAT'S COMING...NOT THE CONTAMINATION, NOT THE INCREASE IN CANCERS, NOT THE EVENTUAL INCREASE IN LOST HUMAN LIVES, NOT THE FACT THAT WE'LL EITHER EAT CONTAMINATED FOOD, DRINK CONTAMINATED WATER, BREATHE CONTAMINATED AIR UNTIL WE CEASE LIVING OR WE CAN UST GIVE UP NOW...

NO, TELLING US WOULD HAVE CHANGED NOTHING...RIGHT?

TELLING US COULDN'T STOP THIS, SO THEY CHOSE NOT TO TELL US JUST HOW BAD IT IS...

Published On: Thu, Feb 27th, 2014SCIENTISTS CONFIRM WE WILL SEE A RISE IN CANCER BECAUSE OF FUKUSHIMA
Indeed, this study refers to the fact that currently the “strategies
for dose assessment”, when involving nuclear accidents, are haphazard,
and do not follow the universal scientific method. In this study,
researchers “propose a comprehensive, systematic approach to estimating
radiation doses for the evaluation of health risks, resulting from a
nuclear power plant accident.” The study asserts:

“The guidelines we recommend here are intended to
facilitate obtaining reliable dose estimations for a range of different
exposure conditions. We recognize that full implementation of the
proposed approach may not always be feasible because of other priorities
during the nuclear accident emergency and because of limited resources
in manpower and equipment. The proposed approach can serve as a basis to
optimize the value of radiation dose reconstruction following a nuclear
reactor accident.”

Strategic assessment of radiation dose exposure and dangers to health are based on variations that include:
• Identification of the target population
• Collection of as many individual-based radiation measurements as possible for persons in the target population
• Collection of individual, personal and lifestyle information that can be used for the estimation of individual dose
• Collection of information on the spatial and temporal patterns and variations of the radiation field
• Calculation of realistic radiation doses with efforts to minimize sources of bias
• Validation of the dose estimates by independent measurements or strategies
• Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the uncertainties associated with dose estimates.
In 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) asserted that “it is appropriate for U.S. residents, within 50 miles of the Fukushima reactors”, to evacuate their immediate environment.
Two years ago, RadNet was being used, although the EPA admitted “that
its network isn’t fully operating.” It was stated that RadNet was
neglected by the agency and in bad need of repairs and systems updates.

The EPA admitted, that samples
revealed, that “elevated radiation levels were found in Alaska,
Alabama, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Saipan, Northern
Mariana Islands and Washington [and that] traces of radiation also were
found as far east as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.”

"According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who recently
released the study, the answer centers on the need for establishing
“reliable and accurate radiation dose estimates for the affected
populations.” This study details how scientists do not know the impact
of radiation exposure to the human body and how the long-term effects of
exposure to Fukushima radiation is still unknown."http://nsnbc.me/2014/02/27

WHEN WILL THEY STOP THE FOCUS ON CESIUM AND REFOCUS ON THE PLUTONIUM, THE OTHER RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES RELEASED BY FUKUSHIMA AND STILL BEING RELEASED BY FUKUSHIMA? WHEN WILL THEY JUST GET ON TV AND THE INTERNET AND TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH? NO ONE HAS EVER DEALT WITH ANYTHING LIKE FUKUSHIMA BEFORE, AND NO SITE HAS SO CONTINUALLY AND SO TERRIBLY PUMPED THIS MUCH RADIATION INTO THE AIR, THE SEA AND THE SOIL...NOT EVER BEFORE.

OVER 1 MILLION TONS OF FUKUSHIMA DEBRIS IS CURRENTLY OFF OUR WESTERN COAST...BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, JAPAN/TEPCO IS RELEASING ABOUT 400 TONS (LATEST UPDATE STATS) OF CONTAMINATED WATER INTO THE PACIFIC EVERY DAY, OR THEY SAY IT'S "ONLY' 400 TONS PER DAY.

HOW DO WE WEIGH WHAT'S BEING RELEASED INTO THE AIR OVER THAT DAMNED NUCLEAR PLANT?HOW DO WE MEASURE HOW MUCH OF OUR SOIL AND DRINKING WATER IS ALREADY CONTAMINATED BY "NUCLEAR RAIN" FROM THAT PLACE?HOW DO WE MEASURE HOW MANY TONS OF RADIOACTIVE AIR WE'RE GOING TO LIVE WITH FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES?

REUTERS NEWS AND OTHERS HAVE REPORTED ON THE JAPANESE PASSING 'LAWS FOR SECRECY' CONCERNING FUKUSHIMA...

"Basically, this bill raises the possibility that the kind of information about which the public should be informed is kept secret eternally," Tadaaki Muto, a lawyer and member of a task force on the bill at the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, told Reuters.

"Under the bill, the administrative branch can set the range of information that is kept secret at its own discretion."

DARE WE IMAGINE THIS HASN'T ALSO BEEN THE CASE HERE IN AMERICA?IT'S A WALL OF SILENCE, WORLD-WIDE.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Fourteen safety-related events at nuclear power plants required "follow-up inspections" from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC reported in 2010. These "near-miss" events "raised the risk of damage to the reactor core – and thus to the safety of workers and the public," concluded a new report, "The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2010,"
THE REPORT WAS A BIT LATE COMING OUT, BUT WHO'S COUNTING?

BELOW YOU WILL FIND SOME OF THE SAD FACTS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT "REPORT", BUT YOU'LL HAVE TO DEPEND ON THE MEDIA TO TELL THE REST OF THE STORY, AND, YES, THE ARTICLES ARE, FOR THE MOST PART, FROM MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND THE FEDS THEMSELVES...
SHEEPLE, REJOICE!

FIRST, A LITTLE BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Of the 100 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1977 or earlier.
There has been no ground-breaking on new nuclear plants in the United
States since 1974. Up until 2013, there had also been no ground-breaking
on new nuclear reactors at existing power plants since 1977. Then in
2012, the NRC approved construction of four new reactors at existing
nuclear plants. Construction of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 began on March 9, 2013. A few days later, on March 12, construction began on the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4. In addition, TVA's new reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station is at an advanced stage, after construction was resumed after being halted in 1988
In 2013, four aging reactors were permanently closed before their licenses expired.

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT SEVERAL TERMS ARE USED TO REFER TO RADIATION LEVELS AND DOSES, BOTH HERE AND ABROAD, BUT ONE THING IS CERTAIN...
CALL IT A RAD OR A SIEVERT, JUST ONE SIEVERT WILL CAUSE ILLNESS, AND 8 SIEVERTS WILL CAUSE DEATH, NO "CURE", NO MATTER WHAT...REPORTED IN DECEMBER, 2013, BY TEPCO ITSELF AND OTHERS:"The reading of 25 sieverts per hour was taken on steel piping near an exhaust...
Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Dec. 6 it detected the highest
estimated radiation level for an outdoor location at the crippled
Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
The reading of 25 sieverts per hour was taken on steel piping
near an exhaust stack for the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors, TEPCO said.
The utility earlier said high radiation levels of at least 10 sieverts per hour were found on the piping.
TEPCO measured airborne radiation at eight locations around
the piping to calculate surface radiation on two spots with particularly
high readings, and found about 25 sieverts per hour and about 15
sieverts per hour, the company said.

25 SIEVERTS...NOT 8, 25.

IN A TEPCO HANDOUT FROM JUNE, 2012, TEPCO ADMITTED THAT OVER A MILLION SIEVERTS PER HOUR HAD BEEN DETECTED IN WATER IN WHAT THEY CALL THE "TORUS ROOM", OVER A MILLION SIEVERTS PER HOUR, A YEAR AFTER THE ACCIDENT.
THEY ALSO CLAIMED THE METER FAILED...UNTIL IT WAS BROUGHT BACK UP...THEN IT APPEARED TO BE WORKING...
IN ACTUALITY, THE METER JUST TOPPED-OUT, COULDN'T RECORD ANY HIGHER, WASN'T DESIGNED TO, AND NOTHING WE HAVE TO DATE IS DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH THE INCREDIBLE RADIATION DOSES PUMPING OUT OF FUKUSHIMA.
THOSE LEVELS DEFY MEASUREMENT.[UPDATE:TODAY, February 25, 2014 WHILE TEPCO MADE THE CALL ON THE TOXICITY OF THEIR RADIATION LEVELS, TODAY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SEEMED INTENT ON QUELLING ANY "NASTY RUMORS" AND PAVED THE WAY FOR AN "OUT" ON JUST HOW DEADLY THIS IS..AS USUAL, THE FEW "FACTS" WERE REITERATED, BUT THEN WSJ BEGAN THE DAMAGE CONTROL...WHICH I CALL LIES, BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION...AND OTHERS HOLD THE SAME OPINION.
{...} Japan’s nuclear regulator flagged in
an email alert at the alarming time of 2:10 Wednesday morning, announced a level of 2,200 millisieverts per hour of radiation had been measured near a tank on the compound that stores contaminated water.
If 1,800 mSv/h — logged a few days earlier at a different spot near
the same tank — was high enough to kill a person in four hours, as operator Tokyo Electric Power Co.
confirmed at the time – then we’re looking at a truly deadly situation
at the site of the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, as many in the blogosphere have said.
BTW, THAT LINK TO THE "BLOGOSPHERE, THE AUTHOR OF THAT INFO IS A RESPECTED EXPERT ON THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF RADIATION, BUT WSJ MUST NOT HAVE AS MUCH RESPECT FOR HIM AS OTHERS DO.]

NOW FOR AMERICA'S NUCLEAR MESSACCIDENTS IN JUST THE PAST WEEKFeb 21, 2014.
JUST A FLEETING "NUCLEAR EVENT" IN NEW MEXICO
NO NEED TO PANICFROM REUTERS:
Trace amounts of man-made radioactive elements such as plutonium were found at an air-monitoring site half a mile from the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
The plant, located in southeastern New Mexico near Carlsbad, is a repository for so-called transuranic waste shipped from other federal nuclear laboratories and weapons sites. The waste includes discarded machinery, clothing and other materials contaminated with plutonium or other radioisotopes heavier than uranium.Airborne radioisotopes can be harmful if inhaled or swallowed.
[NO, NOT "CAN BE"...THEY ARE HARMFUL, PERIOD, DEFINITELY HARMFUL]

Franco said indications suggest a drum or drums containing radioactive waste may have breached for reasons that are not yet known.
The facility in the Chihuahuan Desert normally receives up to 6,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste a year and employs more than 800 government workers and contractors.

It was unclear on Thursday whether waste intended for the repository would be shipped elsewhere and when the plant would resume operations.
[WHEN WILL THEY GET DOWN THERE AND WHERE WILL THE WASTE GO IF NOT TO CARLSBAD?]

02/20/2014

CARLSBAD >> The radiation detected this week near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant likely originated from a container that stored transuranic waste underground.
WIPP is the nation's only disposal facility for transuranic waste, often referred to as "TRU" waste, which is radioactive material generated from the nation's nuclear weapons program. The site, located 26 miles southeast of Carlsbad, started accepting shipments from nuclear facilities around the nation in 1999. The waste is buried 2,150 feet below ground, beneath the salt beds of the Permian Basin.

Joe Franco, manager of the DOE Carlsbad Field Office, said an underground air monitor detected high levels of alpha and beta radiation activity consistent the waste buried at WIPP.

"There's plutonium and americium in our environment from prior detonations of nuclear weapons and from some satellites that have fallen out of orbit and lost their payload, so there's naturally occurring americium and plutonium in the environment that falls out and lands in the soil," Hardy said. [NO, IT IS NOT "NATURALLY OCCURRING"...IT IS MAN MADE BECAUSE WE DECIDED TO SCREW AROUND WITH NUKES. THE GUY HIMSELF STATED THIS IS FROM MAN-MADE SOURCES]
"Anybody who has lived in Carlsbad knows that 20 mph wind is a breeze," he said. "Over the 15 years of monitoring the data that CMERC has accumulated prior to this event, we have found plutonium in our air samples on four separate occasions. We went back and studied the meteorological data from those weeks and years and there were very high winds (ranging) from 50 to 70 mph."
[SO, WHEN THE WIND BLOWS EVERY DAY, THEN WHAT? ALL IS WELL?
DOES ANYONE IN THE NRC HAVE A HOME NEAR THAT, OR NEAR ANY BIG REACTOR?]

Jim Winchester, communications director for the New Mexico Environment Department, said the DOE notified the state of New Mexico about radiation outside the facility on Wednesday afternoon via a teleconference, only slightly before the Current-Argus broke the news to the public.

"I have questions as to why it took a couple of days to verify a radiological event had occurred outside of the underground," Flynn said. "I expect that information will be shared with the state in real time, and I will demand that the federal officials share information with the public in real time."
[DAMAGE CONTROL, PREPARING THE EXCUSES?]

AND ANOTHER NUCLEAR UH-OH IN SOUTH FLORIDA, ALSO FROM THIS MONTH...
AGAIN, NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT, GO BACK TO THE SUNDAY GAME.February 22, 2014 FROM TAMPA BAY TIMES
Yet another Florida nuclear plant may be in trouble."Magnitude of what’s going on at St. Lucie is off the charts”; 100 times worse than average.

More than 3,700 tubes (OF ABOUT 9000 TOTAL) that help cool a nuclear reactor at Florida Power & Light's St. Lucie facility exhibit wear. Most other similar plants have between zero and a few hundred.

Worst case: A tube bursts and spews radioactive fluid. That's what happened at the San Onofre plant in California two years ago. The plant shut down forever because it would have cost too much to fix.

WEAR IN 3,700 TUBES?
Critics say that's like pressing hard on the accelerator, even when you know the car has worn brakes.

"The damn thing is grinding down," said Daniel Hirsch, a University of California at Santa Cruz nuclear policy lecturer. "They must be terrified internally. They've got steam generators that are now just falling apart."
FPL, the state's largest electric utility, brought the St. Lucie 2 plant online in 1983, about 50 miles north of West Palm Beach.
[THAT WAS 31 YEARS AGO.]

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) IN CALIFORNIA WAS THE SAME AGE WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF FAULTY TUBES...IT SHUT DOWN IN 2012, BUT EXPERTS AGREE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN SOONER AND AN INVESTIGATION IS STILL ONGOING.
On Jan. 31, 2012, a "high radiation alarm'' went off at the San Onofre 3 plant south of Los Angeles.
San Onofre 3 had received two BRAND NEW steam generators less than a year earlier. After the leak, inspectors found 1,806 tubes worn in 10,284 places. They also found an unusually high number of worn tubes at the nearby San Onofre 2 plant.
The burst tube had rubbed against another tube, which may explain why it wore out so fast. But, as at St. Lucie, much of the wear to the tubes appeared at the antivibration bars.

Plant owner Southern California Edison concluded that a design change in the Mitsubishi-made steam generators contributed to the wear.

They lacked what are called stay cylinders. The space taken up by stay cylinders was replaced with more tubes, which helped increase the plant's power.

St. Lucie 2's new steam generators also lack a stay cylinder, though they were made by AREVA, a French company.In its analysis of what happened at San Onofre, the company called St. Lucie "the next closest plant with a high number of wear indications.""Although a different (steam generator) design, the (antivibration bars) serve the same design function," Edison wrote in its April 2, 2012, analysis. "So St. Lucie was used to determine similarities and potential actions."

THE SONGS FACILITY IS "OFFICIALLY" CLOSED BUT DECOMMISSIONING, JUST LIKE IN JAPAN, WILL TAKE "SEVERAL YEARS" THE PLANT OFFICIALS SAY, NOT GIVING EXACT TIME...MEANWHILE...WHAT?

THE LAST NUKE PLANT ON THE CALIFORNIA COAST IS DIABLO CANYON.
IT BEARS STRIKING SIMILARITIES TO FUKUSHIMA...BUILT RIGHT OVER ONE MAJOR FAULT LINE AND LYING CLOSE TO A SECOND FAULT , IT, TOO, IS RIGHT ON THE PACIFIC, AND RETURNS COOLING WATER TO THE PACIFIC INSTEAD OF RECIRCULATING IT.
THERE HAVE BEEN MANY PROTESTS THERE SINCE BEFORE IT WAS PLACED IN ITS PRECARIOUS POSITION.

S. David Freeman, a former general manager of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District for four years and well-known anti-nuclear activist, in an article in the Sacramento Bee, June 22, 2012, criticized the continued operation of Diablo Canyon, calling nuclear power the "most expensive and dangerous source of energy on Earth". According to Freeman, Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are both "disasters waiting to happen: aging, unreliable reactors sitting near earthquake fault zones on the fragile Pacific Coast, with millions or hundreds of thousands of Californians living nearby"

[Note: It appears that inspections and their results have been questionable at Diablo for MANY years. Maybe if they didn't warn nuke facilities that inspectors were coming...?]
ODD THING ABOUT THESE NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS, SOME ARE NOT REPORTED FOR YEARS...The Rocky Flats Plant, a former U.S. nuclear weapons production facility located about 15 miles northwest of Denver, caused radioactive (primarily plutonium, americium, and uranium) contamination within and outside its boundaries.
The contamination primarily resulted from two major plutonium fires in 1957 and 1969 (plutonium is pyrophoric and shavings can spontaneously combust) and from wind-blown plutonium that leaked from barrels of radioactive waste. The contamination of the Denver area by plutonium from the fires and other sources was not publicly reported until the 1970s. According to a 1972 study coauthored by Edward Martell, "In the more densely populated areas of Denver, the Pu contamination level in surface soils is several times fallout", and the plutonium contamination "just east of the Rocky Flats plant ranges up to hundreds of times that from nuclear tests.

Denver's automotive beltway does not include a component in the northwest sector, partly due to concerns over unremediated plutonium contamination.The U.S. Government's efforts to make the area surrounding the former plant into the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge have been controversial due to the contamination, much of which is underground and not remediated. BUT (HERE COMES THE DAMAGE CONTROL) ...According to the USFWS, "the refuge has remained closed to the public due to a lack of appropriations for refuge management operations" GUESS THEY CAN'T PAY ANYONE ENOUGH TO GO OUT THERE AND BE CONTINUALLY EXPOSED TO THAT STUFF, RIGHT?FIVE nuclear power plants had emergency shutdowns in 2011:

I HOPE YOU WILL LOOK CLOSELY AT THE MAP OFFERED ON THAT WEBSITE, JUST CLICK HERE.

There are two types of reactors operating in the United States: Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) and Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs). Some experts judge that the design and structure of BWRs do not protect against the release of radiation during a severe accident as effectively as PWRs. The four reactors involved in the Fukushima nuclear crisis were BWRs. Reactors were designed to operate for A MAXIMUM OF 40 YEARS, yet the regulatory body that oversees nuclear safety in the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has re-licensed some nuclear power plants to operate for 60 years, well beyond their originally engineered design lifetime. About one third of reactors in the US are boiling water reactors, the same technology which was involved in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
in Japan. There are also eight nuclear power plants located along the
seismically active West coast. Twelve of the American reactors that are
of the same vintage as the Fukushima Daiichi plant are in seismically
active areas.
Earthquake risk is often measured by "Peak Ground Acceleration", or
PGA, and the following nuclear power plants have a two percent or
greater chance of having PGA over 0.15g in the next 50 years: Diablo
Canyon, Calif.; San Onofre, Calif.; Sequoyah, Tenn.; H.B. Robinson, SC.;
Watts Bar, Tenn.; Virgil C. Summer, SC.; Vogtle, GA.; Indian Point,
NY.; Oconee, SC.; and Seabrook, NH.

The NRC has approved many utility operators to increase the operating power of their nuclear reactors, including for Fukushima-type reactors, and in some cases multiple times and to significantly higher power levels. These so-called "power uprates" push reactors beyond what they were originally engineered to do, and could increase the radiation hazard if a nuclear accident occurred.

If a person received one rad of radiation from a nuclear accident, it would increase one's chance of getting cancer by 1 in 1,000 (averaged over all ages and both sexes). With 6 million Americans living within 10 miles of a U.S. nuclear power plant – the evacuation zone defined by the federal government – and more than 120 million Americans living within 50 miles of a U.S. nuclear power plant – the distance the U.S. government told Americans to evacuate from the area around the Fukushima plant – we cannot afford to stand by and hope the worst won't happen here, especially with extreme weather intensifying around the globe.

ARIZONA HAS A NUKE PLANT (PALO VERDE) NEAR A VOLCANIC FIELD...HOW MANY OF YOU KNEW THAT?
August 8, 2013 | Arizona Geological Survey

The Arizona Geological Survey has a new publication on the geochronology of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field of western Maricopa County.

“This review is intended to provide basic information regarding geologically recent volcanic activity near the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, and is intended to contribute to a re-evaluation of geologic hazards in the general area.” Quoted from AZGS.

This review is intended to provide basic information regarding geologically recent volcanic activity near the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, and is intended to contribute to a re-evaluation of geologic hazards in the general area.

EVEN FORMER HIGH-RANKING NRC EMPLOYEES KNOW WE'RE PAST DUE FOR OUR OWN FUKUSHIMA...Gregory Jaczko, who was chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, has argued that more Fukushima-type accidents are inevitable if the world continues to rely on the current types of nuclear fission reactors, and he believes that society will not accept nuclear power on that condition. "For nuclear power plants to be considered safe, they should not produce accidents like this," he said. "By 'should not' I don’t mean that they have a low probability, but simply that they should not be able to produce accidents like this [at all]. That is what the public has said quite clearly. That is what we need as a new safety standard for nuclear power going forward."

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR DID AN ARTICLE ON OUR AGING NUKE PLANTS
THEY REPORTED ON JUST ONE YEAR'S "MAIN EVENTS"...14 OF THEM, 2009-2010, AND STARTED WITH THE DIABLO FACILITY MENTIONED ABOVE... THEN MOVED ON TO THE TOP 5 OF THE 14 REPORTED "ACCIDENTS".
March 18, 2011 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission failed to resolve known safety problems, leading to 14 'near-misses' in US nuclear power plants in 2009 and 2010, according to a new report from a nuclear watchdog group.
Nuclear plants in the United States last year experienced at least 14 "near misses," serious failures in which safety was jeopardized, at least in part, due to lapses in oversight and enforcement by US nuclear safety regulators, says a new report.
Ironically, the most significant near-miss occurred on the 31st anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident – March 28, 2010 – at the HB Robinson nuclear plant in South Carolina. A high-voltage power cable at the plant failed and started a fire, shutting the plant down and causing an alert – the third-most serious emergency classification. Equipment failures and a remarkable number of operator errors transformed "a relatively routine event into a very serious near-miss," the report said.
Other examples include the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland, which on Feb. 18 automatically shut down when rainwater leaked in through holes in the roof and dripped onto electrical equipment. Workers had noticed a number of leaks across many months before this event, but plant managers had put off repairs. "After all, the roof only leaked when it rained," the report said.
Similarly, at the Braidwood nuclear plant in Illinois on Aug. 16, both reactors shut down, the report said. First, an electrical problem caused an automatic shut-down in one reactor. Then, a poorly designed safety system dumped water onto the floor of the turbine building – which then rained down to lower floors, shorting out other electrical equipment and causing the other reactor to automatically shut down. "Previous events had also dumped lots of water onto the floor," Dr. Lochbaum noted, but "management did not fix the design glitch. They only sent workers out to mop up the puddles.""There is simply no excuse for the fact that the company and the NRC had not detected and corrected at least some of these problems before this event," the study said. None of the 14 near-misses would have happened had earlier warning flags been heeded instead of being ignored or discounted – suggesting a wider problem, the report says.

"Our findings match those of the agency’s internal assessments, as well as of independent agents such as the NRC’s Office of the Inspector General, and the federal Government Accountability Office," the UCS report concludes. "These evaluators consistently find that NRC enforcement of existing regulations is inadequate." Study after study shows "the NRC has the regulations it needs but fails to enforce them."

#2~ Wolf Creek, Kansas – Emergency system leaks
Seven hours after the Aug. 19, 2009 automatic shutdown of the Wolf Creek nuclear plant, due to an electric problem related to a lightning strike, an NRC inspector found water leaking from the system that cools the emergency diesel generators and virtually all other emergency equipment.

An internal study in 2007 had forecast such leakage, showing that a vital cooling system was prone to rust damage that would result in leaks. Management did nothing, the UCS report says. In 2008, the same piping developed the leaks, just as predicted. Management only patched the leaks, doing little about the rusting causing the problem. In 2009, the piping developed more leaks. This time, workers failed to notice the water puddling on the floor until an NRC inspector found it 7 hours later.

While the event occurred in 2009, the NRC report DID NOT APPEAR UNTIL 2010.
NO NEED TO PANIC THE POPULACE, NOTHING WRONG HERE, RIGHT?We do have a right to know if we are being exposed to radioactivity and how much don't we?
I WONDER..HAVE ANY OF THE BOYS AT THE NRC CONSIDERED THAT GETTING PEOPLE TO SAFETY WHEN POSSIBLE IS NOT IN THE SAME CLASS AS "CAUSING PANIC"?
DOES THE NRC THINK SO LITTLE OF AMERICAN INTESTINAL FORTITUDE AND HOW WE REACT TO CRISIS?
OBVIOUSLY SO...

#3~ Brunswick, North Carolina – Delayed reactor time
At the Brunswick nuclear plant, Halon gas – a fire suppression agent – was mistakenly discharged into the basement of the building housing the emergency diesel generator, on June 6, 2010. The release of the toxic gas into a vital area prompted control room operators to declare an alert – the third-most-serious emergency classification.

Workers did not know how to notify emergency responders, the NRC team discovered, so it took 2-1/2 hours to fully staff and activate onsite emergency response facilities – twice as long as specified in the plant’s emergency response procedures. YOU READ IT CORRECTLY, THE WORKERS DID NOT KNOW HOW TO NOTIFY EMERGENCY RESPONDERS...BUT DON'T PANIC...OH, AND THAT MEANS THOSE OF YOU NEAR THAT PLANT WOULD NEVER HAVE KNOWN, NO MATTER WHAT...MUSTN'T PANIC THE PEOPLE...BAD FOR BUSINESS...BAD FOR FUNDING AND JUST BAD BUSINESS...

#4~ Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant, Nebraska – Failure of emergency equipment
On Feb. 17, 2010, the NRC sent a team to the nuclear plant after the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater (AFW) pump automatically shut down shortly after operators started the pump during a monthly test.

The AFW system is an emergency system that remains in standby mode during normal plant operation. However, although the AFW system plays a vital role in an accident, the NRC investigators found that the pump had failed numerous times over many years. The owner had never found the cause of the problem, and therefore had never taken steps to prevent it.

The NRC identified four violations of its safety regulations.
AND IT'S STILL PUMPING...WHY BOTHER DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
KA-CHING, KA-CHING...TIME IS MONEY.

#5~ Surry Nuclear Plant, Virginia – Failure to recognize a problem
Degraded electrical equipment caught fire in the control room of Unit 1, about 90 minutes after an electrical short led to an inadvertent shutdown of the reactor, on June 8, 2010.

Six months earlier, a fire had broken out in the Unit 2 control room – because of similarly degraded electrical components.

After putting out the Unit 2 fire in November 2009, workers had asked technicians to investigate, but the company closed the report without any investigation or evaluation.

After the second fire, workers tested electrical components in both control rooms and found many were degraded, including some that produced visible sparks during testing.

Because the company had taken no action to protect Unit 1 from the problem they had been warned of in Unit 2, NRC's investigation team sanctioned the company.

SO, LOOKING AT THE 14, AND THE CHOSEN 5, DOES IT APPEAR THAT OUR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE NOT LIVING UP TO THEIR 40-YEARS LIFE EXPECTANCY?DOES IT SEEM THAT PARTS ARE WEARING OUT MUCH FASTER THAN WAS SUPPOSED COULD HAPPEN?DOES IT LOOK LIKE MUCH OF ANYBODY "IN CHARGE" ACTUALLY GIVES A DAMN?

WELL, THEY SURE DON'T GIVE A DAMN IN JAPAN...BACK TO FUKUSHIMA THIS WEEKEND...

Feb. 20, 2014: Record-high tainted water leak at Fukushima plant ...AGAIN...FOREVER...
the highest level of radioactive substances detected so far in the series of tank leaks at the site.
The utility estimates that about 100 tons of water had flowed outside the barrier. But they say the water should not have flowed into the ocean because there are no spillways near the tank that lead to the sea.
Utility officials attribute the leak to a fault in one of the valves in the pipes that transfer water from a decontamination system to storage tanks.
Officials say they are continuing their investigation, while working to recover the leaked water and the surrounding soil now contaminated by the water.
NO THEY ARE NOT RECOVERING THE WATER, NOR THE MELTED FUEL, NOR ANYTHING, BUT ONLY ADDING TO THE MESS EVERY NEW DAY!
AT THIS POINT, THEY KNOW IT'S USELESS TO TRY THE SAME THINGS THEY'VE BEEN TRYING, WHICH IS DAMNED LITTLE!

KYODO NEWS ALSO REPORTED THIS ON FEB. 20:
More than nine hours before the leak was recognized, an alarm indicating a rise in the tank’s water surface level was issued. But workers thought the device was out of order and also could not find leaks when they patrolled the area.THE TEPCO TEAM JUST KEEPS SCREWING UP, BUT ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO DO SO.WHAT SORT OF MIND CAN ACCEPT THAT AS OKAY?WHY DON'T THEY RUN THEM ALL OFF FROM THAT PLACE?

AND, SURPRISE, SURPRISE FOR ALL OF YOU WHO LOOK DOWN ON "ALTERNATIVE NEWS SITES", AL JAZEERA REPORTED EXACTLY WHAT A.P. DID, BUT A BIT BETTER WITH AUDIO...
About 100 tonnes of highly radioactive water has leaked from a tank at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant.
An official for the Tokyo Electrical Company said the radioactive water overflowed after a valve was left open by mistake and sent too much contaminated water into a separate holding areaJUST ANOTHER MISTAKE...WHAT'S UP NEXT?THEY "MISTAKENLY" SAW THE LEGS OFF ALL THE HOLDING TANKS?

ENGLAND'S "THE GUARDIAN" , Mar 18, 2011
Nuclear power plant accidents: listed and ranked since 1952.
AT THE TIME THAT WENT TO PRESS, THE NRC RANKED FUKUSHIMA A MERE 5, ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 7, WELL BELOW CHERNOBYL, AND AT THE SAME LEVEL AS THREE-MILE ISLAND...
IMAGINE THAT!
THOSE GUYS AT NRC, WHAT JOKERS...SURELY THEY MISJUDGED...WELL, WE NOW KNOW HOW MUCH THEY MISJUDGED, BUT WITH NO THANKS TO THEIR "REPORTS"...WE HAD TO HEAR IT FROM THE JAPANESE PEOPLE SUFFERING THROUGH THAT THING...AND THE FEW MONITORING THINGS HERE IN THE USA.

WELL, FOR ANY SHEEPLE WHO MAY BE ERRANTLY READING HERE, ALL IS WELL, GO BACK TO GRAZING.
FOR TOO MANY OF THE REST OF YOU...WHAT WILL IT TAKE BEFORE YOU SET UP A HOWL TO YOUR ELECTED LIARS ABOUT ALL THIS?
AN AMERICAN FUKUSHIMA?
JUST WAIT A FEW DAYS WEEKS MAYBE MONTHS...

WELL, THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN A "FEW" BIG ACCIDENTS, RIGHT?AND DO YOU KNOW HOW THEY WERE ASSESSED ?BY "PROPERTY DAMAGE"...PROPERTY, NOT LIVES, NOT CASES OF CANCER, NOT BIRTH DEFECTS, NOT HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT BY PROPERTY DAMAGE!

Nuclear power plant accidents in the U.S. with more than US$140 million in property damage

The map below shows radiation levels currently in japan. This map appeared FIRST in Science Magazine. “Radiation limits begin to be exceeded at just above 0.1 microsieverts/ hour in the blue zones. Red is about fifty times the civilian radiation limit at 5.0 microsieverts/hour. Because children are much more sensitive than adults, these results are a great concern for parents of young children in potentially affected areas.”

<<The fundamental question is whether the vast array of industrial
goods and components “Made in Japan” — including hi tech components,
machinery, electronics, motor vehicles, etc — and exported Worldwide are
contaminated? Were this to be the case, the entire East and Southeast
Asian industrial base –which depends heavily on Japanese components and
industrial technology– would be affected. The potential impacts on
international trade would be farreaching. In this regard, in January,
Russian officials confiscated irradiated Japanese automobiles and
autoparts in the port of Vladivostok for sale in the Russian Federation.
Needless to say, incidents of this nature in a global competitive
environment, could lead to the demise of the Japanese automobile
industry which is already in crisis.
While most of the automotive industry is in central Japan, Nissan’s
engine factory in Iwaki city is 42 km from the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Is the Nissan work force affected? Is the engine plant contaminated? The
plant is within about 10 to 20 km of the government’s “evacuation zone”
from which some 200,000 people were evacuated>>WE NEED TO KNOW HOW CLOSE AMERICA IS TO BECOMING THE NEXT FUKUSHIMA.WE NEED BETTER INSPECTIONS, SURPRISE INSPECTIONS, BETTER REGULATIONS STRICTER ENFORCEMENT, INDEPENDENT, IN-DEPTH STUDIES NOT INFLUENCED BY BIG MONEY AND BIG INDUSTRY, ESPECIALLY NOT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.WE CAN MAKE CHANGES BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE...OR NOT...

Saturday, February 22, 2014

WE ARE A WORLD DIVIDED...EACH GROUP, EACH CULTURE, EACH OF US HAS WORKED OUT OUR OWN THEORIES/BELIEFS ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.
WE HANG ONTO THOSE, AS, PERHAPS, WE SHOULD, "COME HELL OR HIGH WATER".

THERE'S JUST ONE MAJOR THING WRONG WITH THAT...IT CAUSES CONFLICT, OFTEN WARS, AND SOMETIMES, DEATH.

WE ADHERE TO JUST ONE 'THEORY' AND REJECT ALL OTHERS.
SOMETIMES WE DO SO BECAUSE WE WERE TAUGHT TO DO SO, BUT SOME OF US DO SO BECAUSE WE HAVE LOOKED AT ALL 'THEORIES/BELIEFS' AND CHOSEN FOR OURSELVES WHICH WE CAN LIVE WITH, WHICH ONE SUITS US BEST.

IF YOU WILL, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME WHILE I MAKE LENGTHY INTRODUCTION TO THE REAL STORY I HOPE TO PRESENT THIS TIME...THE REAL STORY OF "WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE"OR, WHAT'S WRONG WITH ONE SINGLE THEORY FITTING ALL.
I AM 'OLD', HUMOR ME, IF YOU WILL, AND IF NOT, ADIEU!

WHEN I WAS YOUNG, MY FATHER ASKED ME WHAT MY 'RELIGIOUS BELIEFS' WERE.
AT THE TIME, I DIDN'T KNOW AND WAS AFRAID TO VOICE ANYTHING CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT THE FAMILY SAW AS THE ONE SINGLE WAY TO BELIEVE.
GENTLY, MASTERFULLY, HE DRAGGED IT OUT OF ME...I WASN'T SURE.
HE SUGGESTED THAT I EXPLORE ALL 'RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS', BUT EXPLORE THEM THOROUGHLY, MAKE DEDICATED STUDIES OF EACH, TAKE MY TIME, READ AND RESEARCH, EVEN WHEN DOING SO MADE ME FEEL ANGRY OR THREATENED OR WAS AGAINST WHAT I WANTED TO BELIEVE/ACCEPT.

I SPENT ALMOST 25 YEARS ON THAT. WELL, HONESTLY, I AM STILL 'EXPLORING'.

WHAT I DISCOVERED WAS THAT EACH BELIEF SYSTEM HAD WITHIN IT SOMETHING, LARGE OR SMALL, THAT I COULD HONESTLY AGREE WITH, SEE AS TRUTH, ACCEPT AS LOGICAL OR CORRECT.
WHAT A DILEMMA!
HOW COULD I CHOOSE JUST ONE?
I DID CHOOSE, EVENTUALLY, BUT MY "ONE THEORY" ACTUALLY INCORPORATES MANY...IT IS A "MONGREL" BELIEF SYSTEM. IT ISN'T YOUR EVERYDAY SIMPLE CONCEPT OF THE SINGLE THEORY AT ALL.
BUT IT MAKES ME HAPPY, AND I ADJUST IT, TWEAK IT A LITTLE HERE AND THERE AS I UNCOVER NEW THINGS. I AM UNMINDFUL OF WHAT IS 'SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE' OR 'POLITICALLY CORRECT', YOU SEE.
I DON'T CARE IF ANYONE ELSE ON EARTH CAN ACCEPT WHAT I BELIEVE.
I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT I AM ALL FOR OTHERS HOLDING AS TIGHTLY TO THEIR BELIEFS AS I DO.
THAT INITIAL EXPLORATION INTO ALL 'THEORIES' ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TAUGHT ME THAT IT IS EASILY APPLIED TO ALL FACETS OF HUMAN LIFE.
I COULD DO THE SAME WITH "CREATION THEORY VERSUS EVOLUTION", OR WITH ANY OTHER SET OF CONTROVERSIAL THEORIES AND BELIEFS THAT HUMANS HOLD.

THAT IS WHY THE "RUSSIAN ROULETTE RANT" HERE.
SURE, ALL SHOULD BELIEVE WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE, WHATEVER THEORY BUT SHOULD THAT PROMPT US TO TIE ONE ANOTHER UP AND FORCIBLY TRY TO CRAM WHAT WE BELIEVE DOWN ANOTHER'S THROAT?
HELL NO!

AND SHOULD WE GO TO WAR, VERBALLY OR PHYSICALLY, WITH THOSE WHO WON'T ACCEPT WHAT WE'D LIKE FOR THEM TO ACCEPT?
AGAIN, HELL NO!

I KEEP TRYING TO SHOW THOSE WHO READ HERE AND "TAKE EXCEPTION TO" WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS BLOG THAT THEY CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT I ACCEPT, COULD PERHAPS HAVE A DEEPER LOOK INTO THINGS, EMOTIONS AND PREJUDICES ASIDE, AND SEE IF ANY OF IT "COMPUTES", IF IT MAKES ANY LOGICAL OR FACTUAL SENSE AT ALL, AND, IF NOT, DON'T BOTHER READING HERE AGAIN.
YES, IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
I DON'T GIVE A HANG ABOUT HIGH READERSHIP, ABOUT WHO OR HOW MANY READ HERE IN A DAY OR A YEAR OR A DECADE.
THIS IS MY BLOG, MY WAY, AND IT'S JUST ME, ONE HUMAN BEING, SAYING TO ALL YOU OTHER HUMAN BEINGSS WHAT I HAVE FOUND.
YES, I'M INTERESTED, VERY INTERESTED, IN HOW ALL OF YOU PERCEIVE EVERYTHING, HOW YOU THINK, WHAT YOU KNOW.
I SPENT MANY LONG, HARD-WORKING YEARS TRYING TO FIND A WAY INTO OTHER HUMAN MINDS...AND FOUND NONE.
IT'S A VOLUNTARY THING, OPENING ONE'S MIND TO ANOTHER.
IT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY GIFT TO SHARE A THOUGHT WITH A TOTAL STRANGER, OR A CLOSE FRIEND, OR EVEN A RELATIVE.

BUT THIS "ONE THEORY FITS ALL" IS PURE BULL MANURE.
AND THAT WE DECIDE ON JUST ONE WITHOUT CAREFUL, DEDICATED, DILIGENT THOUGHT, HARD WORK, DIGGING INTO DARK PLACES THAT MAY SCARE US OR MAKE US ANGRY, MAY TAX OUR OWN BELIEFS, IS BOTH CRIMINAL AND A BIT INSANE, DON'T YOU THINK?

AN EXAMPLE...HAD I NOT ACCIDENTALLY COME ACROSS THE ARTICLE ON THE CONTAMINATION OF THE POLIO VACCINES GIVEN TO ALL OF US IN THE 1950s, I MAY HAVE NEVER REALIZED WHY SO MANY IN MY SMALL CLASS (INCLUDING MYSELF) DEVELOPED CANCERS.
IT ANGERED ME, SCARED ME, BUT IT ALSO EMPOWERED ME AND STRENGTHENED ME.

HAD I NOT READ THE HIGHLY IRRITATING BOOK BY VINE DELORIA, JR, "GOD IS RED", I MAY HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD MY OWN GRANDPARENTS' ADHERENCE TO THE "WORLD IS FLAT" IDEA THEY HELD AS SACRED. I'D NEVER HAVE KNOWN WHY OR HOW THEIR BELIEFS COULD BE SO DIFFERENT FROM "THE NORM".

WELL, ALL THAT SAID TO INTRODUCE THIS:A RUINED CAREER...WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?MIDWESTERN EPIGRAPHIC JOURNAL, Volume 16, Number 1, 2002WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?Nothing with science per se. It is a method used for looking at a small part of reality, mainly the physical universe. The problem arises when people, both scientists and the general public, try to make it something it is not -- a world view, for example.

BUT YOU OFTEN HEAR OF "THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW"A contradiction in terms. Science deals with measuring and manipulating concrete facts. A world view looks at those facts from a certain perspective. ALL world views are taken on faith, even supposedly scientific ones.

SUCH AS?Such as the one that claims the physical universe we know is all there is, and that it developed by chance over time.

IS THAT SUCH A BAD THEORY?Not if we remember it is only one theory or philosophy, or religion or world view among many equally as valid. The danger arises when it becomes THE ONLY theory. Then it is only a matter of time until it is crammed down our throats as FACT.

When that happens, good-by free inquiry.

DO YOU SEE THIS HAPPENING IN WESTERN CULTURE?Look around you. When was the last time you heard that particular theory seriously questioned by the scientific media?

BUT AGAIN, IS THAT BAD IF IT'S THE CORRECT WORLD VIEW?Do you mean politically correct? It obviously is that, but that would make me question it more than ever!

WHY??Look at history.. Since when has any government, even the best, remained faithful to the ideal of the welfare of the common man?

WHY WOULD GOVERNMENTS BE SO INTERESTED IN THIS PARTICULAR WORLD VIEW?Because it's interwoven with the Theory of Evolution: accept one, you have to accept the other.

YOU HAVE TO...OR DO YOU?DO YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT ONE ENTIRELY AND REJECT ANOTHER ENTIRELY?NO, NO, NO YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANY SUCH THING!

SUCH THINKING RUINED A RESPECTED SCIENTIST'S REPUTATION.SHE WAS A PART OF ANOTHER "GEOLOGICAL SURVEY", THIS ONE IN MEXICO."An Interview with: Virginia Steen - McIntyre, FMES , Idaho Springs, Colorado"ON THAT INFAMOUS "DIG" BY THE USGS IN MEXICO, SEVERAL METHODS OF "DATING" OF THAT SITE BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, DR. STEEN-MCINTYRE FOR ONE, SCREAMED THAT THE SITE WAS A QUARTER OF A MILLION YEARS OLD, THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAD LIVED THERE, LEFT BEHIND ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS OVERWHELMING, PROVING "MODERN MAN" WAS ALIVE AND WELL OVER 100,000 YEARS PRIOR TO WHAT SCIENCE HAD FORMERLY BELIEVED, AND CRUSHING "DARWIN'S THEORY".

Cynthia Irwin-Williams led the team that first excavated the site in 1962.in mid-1969, B.J. Szabo, Malde and Irwin-Williams[2] published their first paper about dating the excavation site. The stone tools were discovered in situ in a stratum that also contained animal remains. Radiocarbon dating of the animal remains produced an age of over 35,000 ybp. Uranium dating produced an age of 260,000 ybp, ± 60,000 years.

In 1973, Steen-MacIntyre, Malde and Roald Fryxell returned to Hueyatlaco to re-examine the geographic strata and more accurately determine an age for the tool-bearing strata. They were able to rule out Malde's stream bed hypothesis. Moreover, the team undertook an exhaustive analysis of volcanic ash and pumice from the original excavation site and the surrounding region. Using the zircon fission-track dating method, geochemist C.W. Naeser dated samples of ash from Hueyatlaco's tool-bearing strata to 370,000 ybp +/- 240,000 years.

The confirmation of an anomalously distant age for human habitation at the Hueyatlaco site led to tension between Irwin-Williams and the other team members. Malde and Fryxell announced the findings at a Geological Society of America meeting, admitting that they could not account for the anomalous results. Irwin-Williams responded by describing their announcement as "irresponsible".[6] Given the substantial margin of error for the fission-track findings, and the then-new method of uranium dating, Irwin-Williams asserted that Hueyatlaco had not been accurately dated to her satisfaction.

The authors stated that they had no definitive explanation for the anomalous resultsThe dig is often associated with Virginia Steen-McIntyre because of her continuing efforts to publicize her findings and opinions. However, the site was actually discovered by Juan Armenta Camacho and Irwin-Williams. Steen-McIntyre joined the team in 1966 as a graduate student, at the request of project geologist Hal Malde. The excavation was associated with the U.S. Geological Survey.

For the next several years, the excavation team were often at odds as they discussed how to move forward with the Hueyatlaco findings. Malde and Steen-McIntyre argued that the 200,000 ybp findings were valid, while Irwin-Williams argued in favor of a more recent -- though still somewhat controversial -- figure of 20,000 ybp. Webb and Clark suggest that her promoting the 20,000ybp date is "particularly puzzling," as it was unsupported by any evidence the team uncovered.

The delays forced Steen-McIntyre to write her doctoral dissertation not on Hueyatlaco as planned, but rather on the dating of volcanic ash in geographic strata.

Despite leading the original excavations, Irwin-Williams never published a final report on the site. The archaeologist in charge of the Hueyatlaco dig (where they had found well made stone tools) rejected our geologic dates of a quarter-million years1.' because, according to her belief, modern man, the maker of those tools, had not yet evolved 250,000 years ago.

He evolved only 100,000 years ago and that was in the Old World not the New. A classic case of arguing from theory to data, then tossing out the data that don't fit.

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT FIT THE ACCEPTED "ONE SINGLE THEORY" OF...EVOLUTION...OF MAN'S "KNOWN" LENGTH OF TIME ON PLANET EARTH. GOOD OLD "EVOLUTION THEORY", BOWED AND SCRAPED TO BY ALL THE WESTERN WORLD, AND SOME ELSEWHERE.EVOLUTION...BELOVED OF MEN LIKE CHAIRMAN MAO, ADOLF HITLER, EVEN AS A DEFENSE FOR MURDERERS, BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, MAN IS MERELY DESCENDED FROM "LOW-LIFE", FROM "POND SCUM", AND THIS, THIS "FACT", THAT MAN COMES FROM THE SAME ANCESTRY AS AN AMOEBIC ORGANISM, MEANS THAT MAN IS EXPECTED TO BEHAVE LIKE THE OTHER ANIMALS, ANIMALS OF PREY, ANIMALS WHO FEED ON OTHER ANIMALS, ANIMALS WHO KILL WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT "MORALS", THAT MAN DOESN'T DO ANYTHING UNEXPECTED OF AN ANIMAL WHEN HE TAKES ANOTHER LIFE.EVOLUTION JUSTIFIES THE BASENESS, THE INHERENT SAVAGERY OF MAN.

MAN IS "NEW" TO THE GAME OF LIFE, SO HE HASN'T HAD THE REQUIRED TIME TO ATTUNE HIMSELF TO A HIGHER LEVEL, TO ELEVATE HIMSELF ABOVE HIS ANCESTORS.WHY, MAN IS THE MOST RECENT OF ALL "EVOLUTION", THE FINAL RUNG IN THE LADDER, THE TOP LIMB IN THE OLD TREE OF LIFE.HE IS "JUST A DESCENDANT OF APES", AFTER ALL, AND WE ALL KNOW HOW UNSEEMLY THOSE APES CAN BEHAVE, RIGHT?

AHHH, EVOLUTION, THE GREAT EXCUSE.THE ONLY THEORY, YES, JUST A MERE THEORY, THAT WILL MAKE IT ALMOST OKAY FOR A MAN TO BEAT HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN, OR "MAKE" HUMANS DISLOYAL TO ONE ANOTHER, "CAUSE" THEM TO COMMIT UNSPEAKABLE ACTS THAT HORRIFY US, OR SO WE SAY...MAN IS "JUST BEHAVING LIKE HIS ANCESTORS"...WHAT MORE CAN WE EXPECT FROM "LOW-LIFE POND SCUM"?

BUT IF, IF INDEED, MAN HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 250,000 YEARS, OR LONGER, AND IF THERE WAS LIFE IIN THIS HEMISPHERE BEFORE ANYONE IS WILLING TO AMIT THERE WAS LIFE ANYWHERE ELSE, WHY, MY GOODNESS! THE REPERCUSSIONS, THE "HORORS" THAT MIGHT STEM FROM THAT ARE EARTH-SHAKING!WE CANNOT, MUST NOT DREAM THAT MAN IS AND WAS OLDER THAN IMAGINED, ESPECIALLY NOT IN MEXICO, OR NORTH OR SOUTH "AMERICA"!GOD FORBID!

THAT WOULD UPSET THE APPLE CART, ROCK THE OLD BOAT (DARWIN'S HMS BEAGLE?) UNTIL IT SUNK, AND STOP THE EXCUSES FOR MAN'S "INNATE EVIL", HIS AVARICE, HIS ANIMALISTIC TENDENCIES, RIGHT?

HOW DID STEENS-MCINTYRE AND THE OTHERS, THE TESTED AND RE-TESTED DATING, THE PROOF GET OVER-RIDDEN BY ONE WOMAN, BY IRWIN-WILLIAMS?"A matter of influence on her part and lack of it on mine," SAYS STEENS-MCINTYRE.
"She was an anthropologist, a graduate of Radcliffe and Harvard
with powerful friends; I was a geologist with a new PhD from the
University of Idaho, looking for a job.""First thing you learned in the coffee room was who was "in the
know" and who was "out of it". It became almost a game,
verbally cutting to pieces those who didn't count. C.S. Lewis
caught the flavor of the game in his novel THAT HIDEOUS
STRENGTH."CAN THAT BE? THINK ABOUT THE "OFFICE POLITICS" WHERE YOU WORK, OR THE SWAY ONE FAMILY MEMBER CARRIES OVER OTHERS, MAYBE?

MAVERICK SCIENTISTS OBVIOUSLY DO NOT HAVE IT EASY. DO YOU SOMETIMES FEEL LIKE THE LONE RANGER?

More like one of a bunch of Davids slinging stones at Goliath. Hueyatlaco isn't the only censored early man site in the New World, it's the tip of an iceberg.

There's the late Tom Lee, a Canadian archaeologist. He had the misfortune to find an early site on an island in one of the Great Lakes in the 50's. Not only did he lose his government job, he actually was committed to an insane asylum for a time!

There's Dee Simpson and her Calico site in the Mojave Desert of California. The soil developed on top of the sediment column containing the artifacts is 200,000 years old, which makes the sediment layers and artifacts beneath it much older.

Louis Leakey of African fame recognized the stone tools as tools -- not the result of natural causes -back in the 60's. Then there's George Carter and his sites in the San Diego area. He's been battling the archaeologic establishment for 50 years! And many more.

WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE NOW?S.M:Several things.First of all, there needs to be more research in the Valsequillo area: more radiometric dates, more field work, more archaeologic excavations. Fortunately, through support of a wealthy philanthropist, this is happening. Scientists from the USA and Mexico have been working there since the fall of 1997.

I have not been told the results of their research -- I'm certain that they will want to report on it themselves -- but I have been told that it should make me very happy!

Second, we must somehow reverse an alarming trend that has appeared in the research community today, a trend towards "feel good" science, where facts no longer count if they question a politically correct world view.

It was precisely that type of "science" that reigned in the Soviet Union for decades. And what a headache it caused to all concerned!

Third, the censorship of our work and the work of our colleagues MUST STOP! Scientists cannot afford to be rigid in their theories, at least if they are searching for truth.

We must separate science- as-a-method, which is available for all to use, from our world views. Each one of us has a world view we live by, whether we are aware of it or not.

Each is unique, developing out of our personal life experiences. Each is taken on faith.

Recognize the fact! Work with it! A knotty problem such as the age of the first humans in the New World can only benefit from a multi-pronged attack by scientists with different world views.

My ideal: a search for truth in an atmosphere of free inquiry and mutual respect. After all, isn't that what science should be all about?"

WELL, YES, THAT SUMS IT UP NICELY, DOESN'T IT?

WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE "JUST ONE THEORY FITS ALL" IDEOLOGY?

ASK DR. THOMAS GOLD, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA NEW YORK. PLEASE, DO READ WHAT HE SAYS CAREFULLY...IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO.

"I want to discuss this danger and the various tendencies that seem to me to create it, or augment it. I can draw on personal experiences in my 40 years of work on various branches of science and also on many of the great controversies that have occurred in that same period. I will start very naively by defining what a scientist is. He is a person who will judge a matter purely by its scientific merits. His judgment will be unaffected by the evaluation that he makes or the judgment that others would make.

He will be unaffected by the historical evaluation of the subject. His judgment will depend only on the evidence as it stands at the present time. The way in which this came about is irrelevant for the scientific judgment; it is what we now know today that should determine his judgment.

His judgment is unaffected by the perception of how it will be received by his peers and unaffected by how it will influence his standing, his financial position, his promotion - any of these personal matters.

If the evidence appears to him to allow several different interpretations at that time, he will carry each on of those in his mind, and as new evidence comes along, he will submit each new item of evidence to each of the possible interpretations, until a definitive decision can be made.

That is my naive definition of a scientist.

I may have reduced the number of those whom you think of as scientists very considerably by that definition. In fact, I may have reduced it to a null class. But, of course, we have to be realistic and realize that people have certain motivations. If there was no question about appealing to one's peers to be acknowledged, to have a reasonably comfortable existence, and so on, if none of this came into the picture, I doubt that many people would choose a life of science.

When the other motivations come into the act, of course the judgment becomes cloudy, becomes different from the ideal one, from the scientific viewpoint, and that is where the main problem lies. What are the motivations?

If there are motivations that vary from individual to individual, it would not matter all that much because it would not drive the scientific community as much to some common, and possibly bad, judgment.

But if there are motivations that many share, then of course that is another matter; then it may drive the whole scientific community in the field in the wrong direction.

So, we must think: what are the communal judgment-clouding motivations? What is the effect of the sociological setting? Is our present-day organization of scientific work favorable or unfavorable in this respect? Are things getting worse, or are they getting better? That is the kind of thing we would like to know.

The pace of scientific work continues to accelerate, but the question is whether the pace of discovery will continue to accelerate. If we were driving in the wrong direction - in the direction where no new ideas can be accepted - then even if scientific work goes on, the progress would be stifled.

What are the many factors that many people might share that go against the acceptance of scientifically valid new ideas? One obvious factor that has always been with us is the unwillingness to learn new things. Too many people think that what they learned in college or in the few years thereafter is all that there is to be learned in the subject, and after that they are practitioners not having to learn anymore.

I am sure it has great value in sociological behavior in one way or another, but I think on the whole the "herd instinct" has been a disaster in science.

It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that you have to worry about, but you have to worry about how it is augmented by the way in which science is handled. If support from peers, if moral and financial consequences are at stake, then on the whole staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual who is depending on these, but it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science.

Staying with the herd to many people also has an advantage that they would not run the risk of exposing their ignorance. If one departs from the herd, then one will be asked, one will be charged to explain why one has departed from the herd. One has to be able to offer detailed justifications, and one's understanding of the subject will be criticized. If one stays with the herd, then mostly there is no such charge.

"Yes, I believe that because doesn't everybody else believe that?"

That is enough justification. It isn't to me, but it is to very many other people. The sheep in the interior of the herd are well protected from the bite in the ankle by the sheep dog.

It is this tendency for herd behavior that is greatly aggravated by the support structure of science in which we believe nowadays. I will read out just one passage here to show that people other than myself have recognized the herd problems: David Michland writes in the REVIEWS OF ASTRONOMY:

"I sometimes wonder if the much encouraged and proclaimed interaction among western astronomers leads to a form of mental herd behavior which, if it does not actually put a clamp upon free thinking, insidiously applies the pressure to follow the fashion.

This makes the writings of our Soviet colleagues who have partly developed ideas in comparative isolation all the more valuable."

This question of how the support of science - and I don't mean only the financial support but also the journals, the judgment of referees, the invitations to conferences, acknowledgments of every kind - and how that interacts with the question of herd behavior, is what I will now discuss.

It is important to recognize how strong this interaction really is. Suppose that you have a subject in which there is no clear-cut decision to be made between a variety of opinions and therefore no clear-cut decision to be made in which direction you should put money or which direction you should favor for publications, and so on. No doubt opinions would need a multidimensional space to be presented, but I will at the moment just represent them in a one-dimensional situation.

Suppose you have some curve between the extreme of this opinion and the extreme of that opinion. You have some indefinite, statistically quite insignificant distribution of opinions. Now in that situation, suppose that the refereeing procedure has to decide where to put money in research, which papers to publish, and so on.

What would happen? Well, people would say, "We can't really tell, but surely we shouldn't take anybody who is out here on either extreme of the curve). Slightly more people believe in this position than in any other, so we will select our speakers at the next conference from this position on the opinion curve, and we will judge to whom to give research funds," because the referees themselves will of course be included in great numbers in some such curve. "We will select some region there to supply the funds."

And so, a year later what will have happened? You will have combed out some of the people who were out there, and you will have put more people into this region. Each round of decision making has the consequence of essentially taking the initial curve and multiplying it by itself.

Now we understand the mathematical consequence of taking a shallow curve and multiplying it by itself a large number of times. What happens?

In the mathematical limit it becomes a delta function at the value of the initial peak. What does that mean? If you go for long enough, you will have created the appearance of unanimity.

It will look as if you have solved the problem because all agree, and of course you have got absolutely nothing. If no new fact has come to light and the subject has gone on for long enough, - this is what happens. And it does happen!

It is also very clear there that the holding-in that has taken place has been an absolute disaster to research. It is now virtually impossible to do any research outside the widely accepted position. If a young man with no scientific standing were to attempt this, however brilliant he might be, the wouldn't have a hope.

I believe that our present way of conducting science is deeply afflicted by this tendency. The peer review system, which we regard as the only fair way we know of to distribute money (I don't think it is, but it is generally thought to be) is an absolute disaster. It is a completely unstable method. It is completely prone to this tendency; there is no getting out of it.

The more reviews you require for a proposal - now the NSF requires seven reviewers for a proposal - the more you require, the more certain it is that you will follow the statistical tendency dictated by this principle. If you had "noise" in the situation, it would be much better.

Why is it thought that the peer review system would work for science? How about trying to make a peer review system work for other forms of endeavor? Suppose we had a national foundation for the arts, and every painter had to apply to it to get his canvas and his brushes and his paints?

How do you suppose that would work? I can imagine some of the consequences, but better than that, we can look them up in historical examples. If you want to read such, in the book The Experts Speak, you can do that. There is a long list of them that you can read - it makes marvelous reading.

Eduard Manet wrote to his colleague Claude Monet, of Renoir: "He has no talent at all, that boy. Tell him to give up painting."

"Rembrandt was regarded as not comparable with an extraordinarily gifted artist, Mr. Ripingill."

William Blake spoke of Titian and the Venetians as "such idiots are not artists."

Degas regarded Toulouse-Lautrec" as merely a painter of a period of no consequence."

One wonders how art would have fared in a peer review system.

Or would it be different in music? We can read what was said of Beethoven's compositions by musicians of his time: "An orgy of vulgar noises" was the verdict of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony by Mr. Spore, a German violinist and composer.

On Tchaikovsky's appreciation of Brahms, "I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless bastard. It annoys me that this jumping, inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius."

But one could go on almost endlessly with such quotations. Music would not have fared any better.

So we see that the herd instinct is a tendency in the human makeup, which is itself a severe handicap for science. Instead of combating it as best we can, we have arranged a method of nurturing science which actually strengthens it enormously - makes it virtually impossible to depart from the herd and continue to have support, continue to have a chance of publication, continue to have all the advantages that one requires to work in a field.If in a subject there was initially a diversity of opinions, the review system will assure a very short life for that condition, and soon the field will be closed to all but those who are in the center. "

DO YOU SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED?AS ALWAYS, ITS AN "US AGAINST THEM" MENTALITY DRIVING WHAT WE CALL SCIENCE.IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY, THE FAME, THE BRAGGING RIGHTS, AND NOT SO MUCH ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG, TRUTH, ETHICS, REAL DISCOVERY.

SCIENCE SUPPRESSES, AS WE SEE IN JUST THE TWO EXAMPLES ABOVE.WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?IT ISN'T ACCEPTING OF FACTS THAT DON'T FIT THE OLD, COMMONLY-HELD, "BEST" THEORIES.IT WANTS TO COVER UP NEW AND BETTER RESEARCH THAT DISAGREES WITH THE LIKES OF DARWIN, ET AL.IT'S A UNION OF OLD FUDDY-DUDDIES WHO HAVE DETERMINED, IN THEIR OWN SMALL, NEVER-EXPANDING MINDS, THAT ALL IS WHAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED, AND NEW DETERMINATIONS ARE UNNECESSARY IF IT MEANS ONE OF THE "ILLUSTRIOUS" ONES, ONE OF THEIR OWN WHOM THEY HAVE ELEVATED TO GOD-LIKE STATUS IS DISPROVEN, OR EVEN BROUGHT IN TO QUESTION.

WELL, LEARN, OR PERISH, RIGHT?LOOKING ABOUT AT OUR CURRENT STATUS AS A HUMAN SOCIETY, I'D CALL "PERISH"...WOULDN'T YOU?PROGRESS?WHAT PROGRESS?WHEN WE'RE STILL KILLING EACH OTHER OVER DIFFERENCES OF OPINION/BELIEFS/THEORIES, WHAT PROGRESS CAN WE CLAIM?AH, BUT WE ARE JUST THE "NEW BREED OF APE-PEOPLE", RIGHT?AND APES WILL BE APES.UNTIL THEY STOP WANTING TO BE APES...MAYBE?OR UNTIL THEY REALIZE THEY NEVER WERE APES AT ALL?